If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
FAIL
The final review score is indicated as a percentage. The percentage is calculated as Achieved Points due to MAX Possible Points. For each element the answer can be either Yes/No or a percentage. For a detailed breakdown of the individual weights of each question, please consult this document.
Very simply, the review looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.
This report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice of any kind, nor does it constitute an offer to provide investment advisory or other services. Nothing in this report shall be considered a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security, token, future, option or other financial instrument or to offer or provide any investment advice or service to any person in any jurisdiction. Nothing contained in this report constitutes investment advice or offers any opinion with respect to the suitability of any security, and the views expressed in this report should not be taken as advice to buy, sell or hold any security. The information in this report should not be relied upon for the purpose of investing. In preparing the information contained in this report, we have not taken into account the investment needs, objectives and financial circumstances of any particular investor. This information has no regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and particular needs of any specific recipient of this information and investments discussed may not be suitable for all investors.
Any views expressed in this report by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. The views expressed within this report are limited to DeFiSafety and the author and do not reflect those of any additional or third party and are strictly based upon DeFiSafety, its authors, interpretations and evaluation of relevant data. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may quickly become unreliable for various reasons, including changes in market conditions or economic circumstances.
This completed report is copyright (c) DeFiSafety 2023. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.
This section looks at the code deployed on the relevant chains and team aspects. The document explaining these questions is here.
1. Are the smart contract addresses easy to find? (%)
The smart contract addresses are clearly listed in the provided link to real-usd v3 contracts and addresses[1(https://docs.tangible.store/real-usd/real-usd-v3-contracts-and-addresses#github-https-github.com-tangibletnft-usdr-contracts).
However, when we tested the addresses (checking for the types of addresses that deployed contracts) we found that many of the indicated addresses were incorrect. Either the chain is not indicated or even when it does the address indicates a blank unused address.
Example: https://mumbai.polygonscan.com/address/0x21C4223C76dc98F316Ae138526c8c200a65DE28B
Real USD Liquidity Manager: 0x21C4223C76dc98F316Ae138526c8c200a65DE28B
For this reason, the score is reduced to 20%
2. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
The GitHub repository is directly linked in the provided documentation page under real-usd v3 contracts and addresses(https://github.com/TangibleTNFT/usdr-contracts)
3. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
4. How responsive are the devs when we present our initial report?
Devs responded within 24hours
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
5. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
Location: https://docs.tangible.store/real-usd/usdr-whitepaper
6. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (%)
No software architecture documentation could be found.
7. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
There doesn't appear to be any software documentation available.
8. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
With no documentation, there can be no traceability.
9. Is the documentation organized to ensure information availability and clarity? (%)
There is still software documentation so the score defaults to 0%.
10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)
No tests were evident in the GitHub repository. This repository had only eight commits, leading us to believe the real development was done in a private repo. However, with no tests the score for this question will be 0%.
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
With no tests, there can be no test coverage. Therefore the score is 0%.
12. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
No tests, and therefore no test report.
13. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
No formal verification report could be found.
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
14. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
There is a single audit indicated performed by Cyberscope. The audit appears to have taken place after deployment. Multiple issues were found some that might have nontrivial impacts. All issues were acknowledged but not resolved. Frequently the developers indicated that they did not feel it was a security issue. Other times the document said that the correction could potentially be done in a future version. Overall, the evidently quite valid concerns of the auditor were not seriously considered. This gets a score of 50% as per hour standard guidance.
15. Is there a matrix of audit applicability on deployed code (%)? Please refer to the example doc for reference.
There is no matrix of audit applicability. However, as there is only a single audit it is not required. For this reason that we would give a score of 100%.
16. Is the bug bounty value acceptably high (%)
No information regarding a Bug Bounty program or its value was found in the provided documentation. Some tokens were allocated for a bounty. However we do not know what this means.
17. Is there documented protocol monitoring (%)?
The documentation doesn't provide a detailed monitoring process or incident response plan
18. Is there documented protocol front-end monitoring (%)?
There is no documented front end monitoring.
This section covers the documentation of special access controls for a DeFi protocol. The admin access controls are the contracts that allow updating contracts or coefficients in the protocol. Since these contracts can allow the protocol admins to "change the rules", complete disclosure of capabilities is vital for user's transparency. It is explained in this document.
19. Is the protocol code immutable or upgradeable? (%)
The contracts are upgradable with an EOA; https://etherscan.io/address/0xfa9da51631268a30ec3ddd1ccbf46c65fad99251
20. Is the protocol's code upgradeability clearly explained in non technical terms? (%)
At https://docs.tangible.store/real-usd/security the contracts are mentioned as upgradable. I was unable to find a proxy contract.
21. Are the admin addresses, roles and capabilities clearly explained? (%)
There is no information available on admin addresses, roles, and capabilities within the documentation.
22. Are the signers of the admin addresses clearly listed and provably distinct humans? (%)
The documentation does not provide information on the signers of the admin addresses.
23. Is there a robust documented transaction signing policy? Please refer to the Example doc for reference.(%)
The documentation does not provide information on the signers of the admin addresses.
This section goes over the documentation that a protocol may or may not supply about their Oracle usage. Oracles are a fundamental part of DeFi as they are responsible for relaying tons of price data information to thousands of protocols using blockchain technology. Not only are they important for price feeds, but they are also an essential component of transaction verification and security. These questions are explained in this document.
24. Are Oracles relevant? (Y/N)
25. Is the protocol's Oracle sufficiently documented? (%)
There is significant documentation on the Oracle implementation. Given its real world assets much of the oracle input is manual is yet a third party organization. https://docs.tangible.store/real-usd/transparency-program/roles-and-responsibilities
26. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)
No documentation about flash loan mitigations.